Trump guilty of sexual abuse and defamation

[Dirty Hipsters]

To super models. To a odd looking 50 something old lady? And sure, that sounds potentially credible but it isn't what she claimed. She claimed he raped her. In relative public.

Only hot people get raped? People only get raped in private? What exactly are you trying to prove here?

You wouldn't have raped her so Trump wouldn't have either?

 

[Ag3ma]

She didn't need to just freeze up and say nothing as people milled about while he raped her

Well, no. The point was made that the store was all but empty of customers and there were no staff on the changing rooms, so nobody was around.

Again, we can bear in mind that sexual assaults have occurred in all sorts of similar situations. Someone being dragged a few metres down an alleyway where people are walking past on the main street. In houses with people in the next room. There's no point acting like it's weird and unexplainable, because it keeps happening. Of course, sometimes it also happens in plain sight with witnesses.

The point about "freezing up" is that the person doesn't choose. Someone about to be hit by a car who freezes doesn't choose to do nothing and be hit by the car, they can't do anything. Lots of these states exist: freezing, panic, frenzy, etc. People enter states where they are not in rational control. Probably every last one of us has experienced a state like that at some point, even if only briefly.

These are bizarre appeals to incredulity which simply do not stand up to reality. They should not have so much traction: myths that carry on circulating because people do not want to accept reality.

I do hear they did not find he raped her, denying her claim. They split the difference and said he "assaulted her" and then defamed her by saying it didn't happen. If a woman claims to have been raped and even you know it didn't happen, what does it say about you to split the difference in this manner?

I am pretty sure he'd be within his rights to simply deny her accusation, and probably that would have been the end of that.

But he couldn't, could he? Instead, he falsely denied ever having met her, accused her of trying to sell books off a scam accusation, claimed without evidence that's she's engaging in a political plot against him by Democrats, lied that he's vindicated by the store CCTV, etc. Again, he's dug his own hole, here.

 

[Dalisclock]

I'm just going to quote Trump himself here.

"I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."

"You're taking that out of context" /s

Trump has no fucking filter. He says whatever he wants without his brain ever engaging in the process and I guarantee he doesn't remember half the shit he says. He loves the sound of his own voice and the adoration of his fans almost as much.

The big difference is now he's actually being held accountable for the shit he's said and done and it seems unfair to him because he's been able to get away with it his entire life. Must be nice being born with a silver spoon up your ass.

 

[Thaluikhain]

She didn't need to just freeze up and say nothing as people milled about while he raped her (not just an assault: she says he entered her): HE, unless he's a TV star with a reputation and billions to protect that somehow doesn't care about being caught literally with his pants down, had to have somehow known she wouldn't make a peep. That isn't credible.

In the really real world, assaults like that happen all the time. And then people say it couldn't possibly have done, that the victim is a liar, and the complain about victims not coming forwards when they've been assaulted.

 

[gorfias]

Good lord, this is despicable. I strongly suggest you take a hard look at yourself before posting stuff like this.

You are literally writing you have no idea how a mind like Donald Trump's works when it comes to women and sex when we know much about it from his public statements and even what has been publicized in his prenup agreements. That ignorance does not excuse a jury that decided he must be telling the truth, that he did not rape that woman, but decided he is the type to have "grabbed her" by the privates and therefore should be fabulously rewarded... for ridiculously lying about him.

Only hot people get raped? People only get raped in private? What exactly are you trying to prove here?

You wouldn't have raped her so Trump wouldn't have either?

I did hear of a loon that raped a passed out woman on a train while others recorded it on their cell phones. Trump is NOT a loon, whatever else you'd write about him. More comments just above to Silvanus.

I am pretty sure he'd be within his rights to simply deny her accusation, and probably that would have been the end of that.

But he couldn't, could he? Instead, he falsely denied ever having met her, accused her of trying to sell books off a scam accusation, claimed without evidence that's she's engaging in a political plot against him by Democrats, lied that he's vindicated by the store CCTV, etc. Again, he's dug his own hole, here.

The store was just about empty? Reminds me of the Charles Stuart case where a guy murders his wife and wants it to look like an accident, realizes, "oh crap, she's still breathing!" while he is on the phone with cops as he drives around saying he doesn't know where he is and there aren't "many" people around to ask. A journalist posits, "many? Ask a green haired monster! Anyone!!!"
I don't believe her. I don't believe any of it happened. But I agree, Trump talks too much.

In the really real world, assaults like that happen all the time. And then people say it couldn't possibly have done, that the victim is a liar, and the complain about victims not coming forwards when they've been assaulted.

I know of A case... loon on a subway. Trump is a lot of things but he isn't a loon without a care about his public image. And again, even the jury did not find she'd been raped. They split the difference and said she'd been assaulted by the "pussy" grabber.
While I personally don't think any of it happened (He did say he'd never met her when this woman showed she did manage to photo bomb him in the past: a multi billionaire that no doubt meets a ton of people every week) if he did grab her by the privates and she said "no" and he shrugged and walked off, would that fact pattern sell books? I think not. So what are her damages? Not $83 million.

There is something wrong with our legal system. The Bee joked recently that a jury has sentenced Alex Jones to death. Today it's happening to people you do not like. Tomorrow?

 

[Ag3ma]

There is something wrong with our legal system.

Yes, but the only reason you are saying that it because people on your side of politics have started being found responsible. But they are legal principles that are decades, maybe centuries old. They didn't magically become broken only in the last few years.

Trump is a lot of things but he isn't a loon without a care about his public image.

Consider that you yourself said: "Trump talks too much". Yes he does, and it frequently damages him. So how else do you explain a man who cares so much about and works so hard on his public image frequently and unnecessarily torpedoing that public image with rages, abuse, lies, ranting, incoherent waffle, whining and crass boasting?

Answer, because he can't control himself. He's emotionally volatile, full of compulsions, and if something sets him off then he's gone and self-sabotages. He is, basically, a loon.

 

[Asita]

This says more about our broken justice system than it ever did about Trump.
This "Bat poop crazy" creative writer tells us Trump graped her in a relatively public place: a dressing room at a shop with customers and staff milling about. She did not file a police report. She did not make a peep to the people in the store. The Judge should have thrown the case out for lack of credibility. Yet now, over an issue she did not even file a police report about, has now ballooned to $83 million.

Have you considered that you have gotten a very skewed analysis of the court's decision because your sources are personally invested in making the decision seem irrational?

Case in point: This case was at is core a defamation case brought on by the nature of how Trump disputed her accusations. Namely, rather than simply pleading his innocence or insisting that the facts of the case didn't add up, he tried to turn the court of public opinion against her by devoting segments of his platform to insulting her and making allegations about her motive and character, trying - as is a common tactic of his, one that he has even bragged about long before this case - to make the case too personally costly to pursue. One might also note, for instance, that he keeps trying to do the same thing to the prosecution of his other cases, relying on the fact that the judge and/or opposing council either has to suck up and deal with his abuse or would have to recuse themselves - thereby ironically creating the conflict of interest he pretends exists, derail their case and potentially damaging their careers - in order to file suit of their own.

And as a clarification, the defamation does not stem from him pleading his innocence, it's that he - a public figure leveraging his platform with his large base of supporters who take his word as gospel - started dragging Carroll's name through the mud, damaged her reputation, substantively harmed her professionally, and caused emotional distress with what amounted to his own "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest" rabble-rousing (resulting in, among other things, threats to Carroll).

After the court ruled that the preponderance of evidence showed that Trump had indeed sexually abused Carroll and had indeed defamed her with false statements about her that were made with actual malice (and before anyone starts, that's a specific legal term), Trump doubled down on those same defamatory statements, incriminating himself once again for more instances of the same type of crime.

And that's where the bulk of the $83 million comes from: $65 million in punitive damages for willful and wanton continuation after the verdict of the same defamatory behavior he had just been convicted of. Because, unsurprisingly, when you make it clear that your conviction hardly even registers as a light slap on the wrist and won't even make you hesitate to do it again, the courts increase their punishment on a subsequent conviction to convince you not to keep doing it. You might even be familiar with this through the phrases "first time offender" and "repeat offender", and the fact that the latter are typically punished more severely than the former.

And before you start echoing Trump's base's line that the jury had exonerated him of the crime, what the jury actually found was that Carroll et al had proven that Trump had sexually abused her, but they had not proven that Trump had used his penis to do so. New York law defines rape very narrowly, exclusively for cases in which sexual abuse occurred through the use of a penis. The jury found him substantively guilty, not innocent, only disputing the precise terminology that best represented which of these crimes he was guilty of.

Put a different way, it's like saying that in arguing a case about sale of stolen goods which the prosecution argued came from a robbery, the jury concluded that the theft only qualified as larceny rather than burglary. There's a difference (burglary requires unlawful entry, larceny does not), but it's more than a little dishonest to use that distinction to argue - as you and Trump's base have here - that the jury such a ruling means that the heart of the crime in question (theft in the analogy, sexual abuse in the Carroll case) didn't happen ("did not find evidence of burglary, denying the prosecution's claim", to borrow your phrasing). Never mind trying to argue that this distinction somehow means that anything relating even tangentially to it (sale of stolen goods in the analogy, defamation of Carroll in this case) is necessarily without basis and that therefore the ruling necessarily carries terrifying implications.

 

[gorfias]

Yes, but the only reason you are saying that it because people on your side of politics have started being found responsible. But they are legal principles that are decades, maybe centuries old. They didn't magically become broken only in the last few years.



Consider that you yourself said: "Trump talks too much". Yes he does, and it frequently damages him. So how else do you explain a man who cares so much about and works so hard on his public image frequently and unnecessarily torpedoing that public image with rages, abuse, lies, ranting, incoherent waffle, whining and crass boasting?

Answer, because he can't control himself. He's emotionally volatile, full of compulsions, and if something sets him off then he's gone and self-sabotages. He is, basically, a loon.

No, a lot of MRAs and MGTOW have been worried about false accusations for a very long time. Mike Pence didn't come up with the Pence rule for nothing.

Lawyer buddy of mine had to BE deposed one time and his take away? He himself talks way too much. I wouldn't describe him as either a loon or someone that would rape a woman in public.

More below.

Have you considered that you have gotten a very skewed analysis of the court's decision because your sources are personally invested in making the decision seem irrational?

Case in point: This case was at is core a defamation case brought on by the nature of how Trump disputed her accusations. Namely, rather than simply pleading his innocence or insisting that the facts of the case didn't add up, he tried to turn the court of public opinion against her by devoting segments of his platform to insulting her and making allegations about her motive and character, trying - as is a common tactic of his, one that he has even bragged about long before this case - to make the case too personally costly to pursue. One might also note, for instance, that he keeps trying to do the same thing to the prosecution of his other cases, relying on the fact that the judge and/or opposing council either has to suck up and deal with his abuse or would have to recuse themselves - thereby ironically creating the conflict of interest he pretends exists, derail their case and potentially damaging their careers - in order to file suit of their own.

And as a clarification, the defamation does not stem from him pleading his innocence, it's that he - a public figure leveraging his platform with his large base of supporters who take his word as gospel - started dragging Carroll's name through the mud, damaged her reputation, substantively harmed her professionally, and caused emotional distress with what amounted to his own "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest" rabble-rousing (resulting in, among other things, threats to Carroll).

After the court ruled that the preponderance of evidence showed that Trump had indeed sexually abused Carroll and had indeed defamed her with false statements about her that were made with actual malice (and before anyone starts, that's a specific legal term), Trump doubled down on those same defamatory statements, incriminating himself once again for more instances of the same type of crime.

And that's where the bulk of the $83 million comes from: $65 million in punitive damages for willful and wanton continuation after the verdict of the same defamatory behavior he had just been convicted of. Because, unsurprisingly, when you make it clear that your conviction hardly even registers as a light slap on the wrist and won't even make you hesitate to do it again, the courts increase their punishment on a subsequent conviction to convince you not to keep doing it. You might even be familiar with this through the phrases "first time offender" and "repeat offender", and the fact that the latter are typically punished more severely than the former.

And before you start echoing Trump's base's line that the jury had exonerated him of the crime, what the jury actually found was that Carroll et al had proven that Trump had sexually abused her, but they had not proven that Trump had used his penis to do so. New York law defines rape very narrowly, exclusively for cases in which sexual abuse occurred through the use of a penis. The jury found him substantively guilty, not innocent, only disputing the precise terminology that best represented which of these crimes he was guilty of.

Put a different way, it's like saying that in arguing a case about sale of stolen goods which the prosecution argued came from a robbery, the jury concluded that the theft only qualified as larceny rather than burglary. There's a difference (burglary requires unlawful entry, larceny does not), but it's more than a little dishonest to use that distinction to argue - as you and Trump's base have here - that the jury such a ruling means that the heart of the crime in question (theft in the analogy, sexual abuse in the Carroll case) didn't happen ("did not find evidence of burglary, denying the prosecution's claim", to borrow your phrasing). Never mind trying to argue that this distinction somehow means that anything relating even tangentially to it (sale of stolen goods in the analogy, defamation of Carroll in this case) is necessarily without basis and that therefore the ruling necessarily carries terrifying implications.

There's a thing called "reciprocity". Also, truth is an absolute defense. If she said he raped her (and wrote a book stating he had done so!) and that is a lie, he would be well within his rights to to call it a lie and tell the public this book was the product of a loon. She should be every bit as condemned as was, for instance, Lena Dunham who published a book claiming she was a rape survivor, as I recall, claiming the President of the Republican Student Union had done it. When the guy that had been in this position at the time she claims to have been raped confronted her about it, she retracted her accusation.

So, did Trump rape this woman? Even the jury did not buy that. If they don't buy something that material, I find it absurd to find anything else she had to say on the matter to be true.

To my knowledge, they found against Trump as they found her very credible and him to be an ass hat. I have a problem with a court finding someone guilty of a thing if the other side, without further material evidence, did a better job of pushing their version of events, even if completely false, which is what I find happened here.

Going forward, we need to teach the women in our lives to report sexual assault to the police in a timely manner. Otherwise, this sort of thing will happen again and again. And next time it might be to someone you don't hate.

 

[Thaluikhain]

No, a lot of MRAs and MGTOW have been worried about false accusations for a very long time.

Despite it happening much less frequently than they allege. And, despite hysteria about it ruining lives Trump was accused of rape by multiple women before winning his election.

So, did Trump rape this woman? Even the jury did not buy that. If they don't buy something that material, I find it absurd to find anything else she had to say on the matter to be true.

That is, there was at least reasonable doubt on that issue.

Going forward, we need to teach the women in our lives to report sexual assault to the police in a timely manner.

So that you can cast doubt on them? There's always going to be some reason why people like you will judge a rape victim to not be credible. That she did not behave in the way you have decreed official rape victims should is always popular, or that she's not the sort of woman that gets raped. What she was wearing is a good one, or if she has drunk alcohol beforehand, if she has an active sex life, or was a romantic partner of the rapist in the past.

As long as people like you attack victims for coming forwards, they'll hesitate to come forwards.

 

[gorfias]

Despite it happening much less frequently than they allege. And, despite hysteria about it ruining lives Trump was accused of rape by multiple women before winning his election.



That is, there was at least reasonable doubt on that issue.



So that you can cast doubt on them? There's always going to be some reason why people like you will judge a rape victim to not be credible. That she did not behave in the way you have decreed official rape victims should is always popular, or that she's not the sort of woman that gets raped. What she was wearing is a good one, or if she has drunk alcohol beforehand, if she has an active sex life, or was a romantic partner of the rapist in the past.

As long as people like you attack victims for coming forwards, they'll hesitate to come forwards.

And yet, they should have a duty to do so (come forward). I just read the wiki on this and Carrol can't even name the YEAR this happened. How is that not prejudicial to the accused? ! @Ag3ma writes the store was not that populated at the time of the attack. How do we check that if we don't even know what year it happened upon?

 

[Thaluikhain]

And yet, they should have a duty to do so (come forward).

Why? Why are there more demands placed on the victims? To be dragged through the court and press, for a tiny chance that their attacker will see prison time.

Again, though, if you want victims to come forwards, a good way to start would not be attacking them when they do.

 

[gorfias]

Why? Why are there more demands placed on the victims? To be dragged through the court and press, for a tiny chance that their attacker will see prison time.

Again, though, if you want victims to come forwards, a good way to start would not be attacking them when they do.

A better thing to do is maintain a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Had E.Carrol filed a police report (assuming there is any truth whatsoever to her claim) we would know what year it happened. Investigators could speak to people working there that day. Maybe they have security cameras. Instead, you have some people nearly 30 years later simply telling us that they're telling the truth (I think she brought in witnesses that pinky swear Carrol told them about this back in the day).

Maybe we can believe most women. But make that the rule and anyone with a pocket to pick will become a target of false accusations. This case may be a good illustration of how easy and renumerative it is to do.

 

[tstorm823]

Maybe we can believe most women. But make that the rule and anyone with a pocket to pick will become a target of false accusations. This case may be a good illustration of how easy and renumerative it is to do.

That may be a step too far, I think this is a rather unique case. I don't think it's that easy to pick a pocket if you don't pursue this case in a kangaroo court in a jurisdiction where everyone hates the target of the suit.

 

[thebobmaster]

Uh-huh. Just go forward to the police, and they'll be sure to investigate things in a timely manner.

I'll just leave this here. https://www.rainn.org/articles/addressing-rape-kit-backlog

 

[gorfias]

That may be a step too far, I think this is a rather unique case. I don't think it's that easy to pick a pocket if you don't pursue this case in a kangaroo court in a jurisdiction where everyone hates the target of the suit.

It is a unique case but illustrates a problem that has long existed, hence things like the Pence rule and more recently, remarks by Henry Cavill

Henry Cavill Criticized for Saying He's Hesitant to Flirt Over Fears of Being 'Called a Rapist'

Henry Cavill triggered a social media backlash over comments he made about how the #MeToo movement has changed the way he approaches dating

people.com

He's since apologized and he has dated but I believe he meant what he said for reasons.

Uh-huh. Just go forward to the police, and they'll be sure to investigate things in a timely manner.

I'll just leave this here. https://www.rainn.org/articles/addressing-rape-kit-backlog

So, better to wait 30 years to say something? You think that doesn't prejudice the accused, one of the main reasons we have statutes of limitations to begin with?

 

[Asita]

No, a lot of MRAs and MGTOW have been worried about false accusations for a very long time. Mike Pence didn't come up with the Pence rule for nothing.

Lawyer buddy of mine had to BE deposed one time and his take away? He himself talks way too much. I wouldn't describe him as either a loon or someone that would rape a woman in public.

More below.


There's a thing called "reciprocity". Also, truth is an absolute defense. If she said he raped her (and wrote a book stating he had done so!) and that is a lie, he would be well within his rights to to call it a lie and tell the public this book was the product of a loon. She should be every bit as condemned as was, for instance, Lena Dunham who published a book claiming she was a rape survivor, as I recall, claiming the President of the Republican Student Union had done it. When the guy that had been in this position at the time she claims to have been raped confronted her about it, she retracted her accusation.

So, did Trump rape this woman? Even the jury did not buy that. If they don't buy something that material, I find it absurd to find anything else she had to say on the matter to be true.

To my knowledge, they found against Trump as they found her very credible and him to be an ass hat. I have a problem with a court finding someone guilty of a thing if the other side, without further material evidence, did a better job of pushing their version of events, even if completely false, which is what I find happened here.

Going forward, we need to teach the women in our lives to report sexual assault to the police in a timely manner. Otherwise, this sort of thing will happen again and again. And next time it might be to someone you don't hate.

See, this is exactly what I meant with the "the jury called it larceny, not burglary" analogy. You're resorting to what amounts to a semantic argument that it didn't meet the specific legal definition of rape to falsely imply that the heart of the claim (theft in the analogy, sexual abuse in this case) was ruled as not credible and the court simply pretended otherwise, when in fact the jury found him guilty of a nearly identical but legally distinct crime. To use a more extreme example it's like quibbling that the jury in a murder trial only found the defendant guilty of second degree murder rather than first degree, and using that distinction to pretend that they found it unlikely that the defendant actually killed the victim and therefore the guilty verdict is a sham.

 

[Ag3ma]

Lawyer buddy of mine had to BE deposed one time and his take away? He himself talks way too much. I wouldn't describe him as either a loon or someone that would rape a woman in public.

It's not just "talking too much", though, is it?

That's a euphemism you are employing to underplay just how erratic and bizarre Trump's behaviour actually is. Your lawyer friend isn't like Trump at all, is he? He might let his mouth run away with him sometimes, but I bet your friend does not compulsively lie about anything and everything. I bet he doesn't fly off the handle and hurl abuse at anyone who disagrees with or opposes him. Chances are he doesn't constantly boast, and put other people down, and many other strange, grotesque, irrational and self-sabotaging things Trump does.

You and other Republicans can see that Trump's behaviour is well outside normal bounds. But here you call E. Jean Carroll a "loon" because some of her behaviour is outside normal bounds. What sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If she is a "loon", so is Trump.

If she said he raped her (and wrote a book stating he had done so!) and that is a lie, he would be well within his rights to to call it a lie and tell the public this book was the product of a loon.

Asita has answered this. It is just semantic trickery.

 

[Ag3ma]

That may be a step too far, I think this is a rather unique case. I don't think it's that easy to pick a pocket if you don't pursue this case in a kangaroo court in a jurisdiction where everyone hates the target of the suit.

Sure, and so it's equally true that it's easy to hear that the leader of a political party is blameless as long as you ask a fervent supporter of that party.

Now go find a mirror and have a think.

 

[tstorm823]

Sure, and so it's equally true that it's easy to hear that the leader of a political party is blameless as long as you ask a fervent supporter of that party.

Now go find a mirror and have a think.

You're having a real hard time understanding what people are saying these days.

 

[Ag3ma]

You're having a real hard time understanding what people are saying these days.

Cool evasion, bro.